Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » Possible Commuter Routes « Previous Next »
Possible Commuter Routes - 1Danindc116 01-12-07  3:56 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 193
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can anybody think of a way to extend the people mover into/near (past Alter) Grosse Pointe? That would work out well for me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 50
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100,

The only extension of the PeopleMover that is being considered that I know of is northward toward WSU and the New Center area, and I don't know whether anything will come of that.

More promising is that the City of Detroit has engaged an engineering firm to study possible light-rail lines within the City and a few specific nearby suburbs. This just started up recently. I don't know whether East Jeff is one of the corridors they are looking at, but I hope it is, since that seems like a promising corridor for such a purpose.

For some reason the City has not made a big deal about the fact this study is going on. If anyone knows any details about it, please post if you can.

Alter, of course, is not the border; the border is the alley between Alter and Wayburn. Just a little trivia in case you didn't know. (The Olde Tap Room, for example, is in Detroit, not Grosse Pointe Park.)

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2033
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 4:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Can anybody think of a way to extend the people mover into/near (past Alter) Grosse Pointe? That would work out well for me.




Honestly, it would be cheaper and more cost-effective to build a light-rail line from downtown Detroit to Grosse Pointe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 194
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But where would they put it? Jefferson isn't well situated and Mack doesn't get a median (grass) until Cadieux.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1841
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems to me that Jefferson from downtown to Alter and then on Alter to Mack and then NE on Mack would work just fine.

You don't need a grass median, it is actually easier to build it when you don't have existing landscaping to remove.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 51
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 5:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jefferson would be fine. There are a lot of ways, physically, to set it up. And of course, as Jsmyers mentions, it can change streets, just as some of the old streetcar lines used to.

Modern light rail can run within the street cross-section, or off to the side, or in its own running-way like a freight railroad; it can go through grassy areas such as parks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 196
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's kinda what I was thinking. I just wanted to get opinion. I hope to god they would put it up to St. John's. I live half a block away from Mack and it would be really good if they put it up Mack.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 2:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SMART-SEMTA. Kinda looks the same at 3:44 in the morning.Haha.

What is your thoughts on a light rail line on Merriman connecting a Michigan Ave. line an 8 Mile line, and a Maple,(15 Mile), line? It looks to me to be the best route possibility to connect the east side and points north to Metro Airport.

(Message edited by Warrenite84 on January 13, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 736
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually the Big Beaver Metro Pkwy Corridor would serve better than Maple/15. 16 has lots of employment centers, and could link into Metrobeach. There is no reason why the line could not go down to Brimingham though to meet up with some Woodward Train/Bus/LightRail line.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1297
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Funny thing is both 15 Mile and 14 Miles have crosstown SMART bus lines, while 16 Mile/Big Beaver/Metro Pkwy has nothing but a small portion of one SMART route in Troy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 209
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 12:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SMART at its finest.
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 314
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 11:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm campaigning to get SMART back to Livonia.
If anyone is interested then please post.

I got strong industry support for SMART in Livonia but my efforts failed on November 27, 2006.

I want to help this region get the best public transit system that our limited transportation tax dollars can buy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 738
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 1:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Regional Transit Route #1 moves forward despite setbacks. Note small blurb on DPM.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2007701140553

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2007701140556
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 216
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Signs are looking good.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1298
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 10:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Signs are that it is going to happen, although I hope it ends up also going up to Oakland or Macomb County. But the next step is for people to actually ride it, and connector service to be coordinated and reliable. If this is a failure then we will have no chance of mass transit for another 50 years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 224
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 10:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Given time, and persuasion with CN, a Pontiac/Detroit route should happen easily (I hope). Macomb county could be interesting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 670
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The paper quotes Rose Sheridan, APTA's vice president for communications and marketing, who emphasized that "As a developer I would want to know I have people that want to live there. We're certainly seeing a much greater sense of people that want to live in communities where they can work, shop and take advantage of local community activities without having to get in their car."

According to Lawrence Rael, executive director of the Mid-Region Council of Governments (described as "partnering with the state on the Rail Runner project"), because of their permanence, railroad tracks "provide developers with a sense of security."

"The investment by the government in infrastructure like a track, where it's not going to be moved on a whim, it shows developers you're going to put your money into a corridor that the government has identified as a major transporter of people" Rael explained to the Tribune. "It's a different dynamic than bus lines. Two years later, that bus route could move to a different street."

Yeah, that economic model works just fine in the rest of the country. but we're different here in Detroit. We've got it all figured out and we know that rail transit could never work here. That's why we need to add a couple of lanes in both directions to I-75 and I-94 and do it PRONTO! Mass transit advocates are losers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 230
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What would that solve? All that would happen would be a lot more congestion would occur on the freeway. That wouldn't solve anything. We need rail/bus transportation. Not expanded freeways.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 693
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Swingline was being sarcastic.

BTW, even though I have never been the St. Louis LRT looks fantastic.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?t=123548
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 231
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was hoping that was the case. Sorry if that was the case Swingline.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 753
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 7:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Swing, keep in mind that APTA has a significant built-in bias to mass transit. It is how they make their money.

If you asked the Michigan Roadbuilders the same question, you would get a completely different answer with completely different rationale being used.

The trick is to study the hell out of everything, then throw a dart and hope you pick the right fix. Well okay, with NEPA, its a little more complicated than that. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2039
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 7:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

If you asked the Michigan Roadbuilders the same question, you would get a completely different answer with completely different rationale being used.



And we all know how well Michigan's roads-only approach has worked!
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 755
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its not a roads only approach. There are hundreds of transit providers in this state.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0 ,1607,7-151-9625_21607-34128-- ,00.html
Granted, more could be done, but how could we have the great airport we have if we are roads only? How about the marine facilites?

Even the people mover, DDOT, SMART, and AATA provides millions of trips every year. We tend to focus too much on the negative and pitting one against the other than look at things as assets or liabilities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2041
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^When was the last time you took a plane or a freighter to work, or to the store?

Something tells me if you didn't live in Michigan, you'd quickly be out of the planning profession.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 757
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 9:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan there is such a thing as the right tool for the right job. Just because I would not take a boat to a store does not mean I would drive to Boblo or take a bus to China. The fact of the matter is, the transport of goods is very important for our economy here. This is not DC where everyone in a bureaucrat. Here people make their money driving trucks and making cars. Therefore, it is not a mystery why our transportation system looks the way that it does (and why our economy is in such a mess, but thats a different thread).

The way you belittle others who may disagree with you is tiring. Why on earth do you even post here if all you do is complain and wax poetically? Snide remarks about how Michigan is pro-roads does nothing to support transit, nor does it add to the subject of the thread.

Why on earth if you have such an interest in this part of the world do you live in DC? I have made improving Detroit a central part of my life. Just because I have a different perspective does not mean I am an idiot. You on the other hand spout off very simple recommendations as if you are reading them from a textbook. You have to live here and immerse yourself in the culture to understand.

Even if you lived here at one time, you know what? Things have changed since you have. A friend of mine explained it this way: 'its as if time stood still when (his sister) left Detroit, talking to her about anything different or new is impossible; all she wants to do is go to Lafayette Coney Island and the Old Shelighliegh (sp) because those were fun in 1990. She is stuck in the time machine that goes back to that time'.

Thousands of people in Michigan work for transit agencies. While we may not have a perfect transit system, who does? Tell me, whose transit system walks on water?

Can there be improvements? Yes, but Michigan is not a roads only state by any sense of the word. Find any of the Trainman threads he will remind you that. You want to complain about roads only states? Go find NorthDakotaYes.com.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 11:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner,

Be real: Detroit (the region, not the city) has the worst public transportation of any big-city region in North America. I would be happy to share the details with you, but not in a blog, there's too much information and it's technical.

Meantime, Detroit (the city, not the region) has more lane-miles of freeway per capita than any other big city on Earth.

North Dakota is not like Michigan in that it does not have any large urban areas. Michigan has the most unbalanced transportation system of any state with one or more large urban areas. (I define "large urban area" as an urbanized region with a SMA population of 2.5 million or more FYI.)

Every other metro region in North America with a regional population of 2.5 million or more has regional rapid transit. We are absolutely by ourselves in this shocking lack of a basic, big-city public service.

The facts are the facts. In every other big-city region in North America, you can get by without a car (or without having to use your car all the time) better than in metro Detroit. Every other big-city region provides better transportation choice than metro Detroit. Every other big-city region has better economic growth than metro Detroit and no other city in history has gone from 2+ million population to under 1 million so far as I can determine.

We do have good things going for us, but for Christ's sake, when something is broken let's admit that it's broken and not pretend that it isn't.

Look at SEMCOG's most recent 30 year plan: billions for new road capacity, not one dollar for new transit capacity. I don't understand how you can argue against Danindc's claim that we have had a roads-only approach, and we have had it for decades. Our public transit absolutely sucks, we have no nonmotorized transportation worth mentioning. In metro Detroit, more than any other big city region, if you do not have a car you are economically and socially crippled.

Let's not fantasize here. Things are what they are. We have no realistic transit system in the southeast region of this state; it is only sufficient for people who are desperate or extremely dedicated. I use transit everywhere I travel; yet here, I am forced to drive everywhere, and I don't want to.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 760
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have never once said that 'golly gee we spend too much on transit and not enough on roads'. The fact is we have a huge amount of needs in this region; bad transit and bad pavement are both in abundance. If you read SEMCOG's plan you will see our needs far outweigh our resources.

http://www.semcog.org/Products /pdfs/2030rtp_needs.pdf

If you look at page 68 (of the pdf), Transit agencies only expect to spend $1.4 billion on providing service, however, SEMCOG's analysis came up with $7 billion in needs. Politically, the metro can't even raise the match money needed to go after the federal portion of the shortfall. Page 43 (of the pdf) summarizes SEMCOG's transit recommendations, including large improvements to the system.

Didn't I just recently read that SEMCOG is trying to get commuter rail started even though the cards are stacked against them?
How about this SEMCOG plan?
http://www.semcog.org/Products /pdfs/transitplan10-01.pdf
or this one that outlines that the biggest impediment to transit is lack of political will and money? Maryann Mahaffey was in charge of this shortly before she died.
http://www.semcog.org/TranPlan /Transit/assets/TransImpedComm Report.pdf
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What a crock. We have bad pavement because we built more of it than we could support regionally. We have bad transit because we used to have good transit but then we tore it all up when it was good and now we have almost none. Big difference!

Again, Detroitplanner, instead of reading all of the "pie in the sky" plans we tend to create around here every 15 years or so, none of which go anywhere, please look at the one and only official SEMCOG 30 year plan for transportation in this region. It calls for billions of dollars of maintenance of existing systems, for both roads and transit, granted.

Then, for capacity expansion, which is SEMCOG's decision as to where to spend its very limited money on improvements, we see SEMCOG plans to spend billions of dollars on widening roads, and not one single dollar on transit expansion.

I know about the attempt to implement an el-cheapo commuter rail system to develop ridership numbers. I do talk to SEMCOG people now and then. The fact is, though, according to SEMCOG's one and only long range plan, what we need in this region is wider roads, not better transit.

Again, Detroitplanner, this separates us from every single other big-city region. They all build (not plan, build) both roads and transit. We build only roads. That's why we're doing so well compared to everyplace else! Oops, oh wait, we aren't. Sorry, my bad.

Oh well, I guess since we're Detroit, we know everything better than everyone else. Those other regions that are growing (population wise and economically) are apparently making a mistake building both transit and roads. We're smarter; we know we should build only roads and not transit. We know we should create transit plans in writing, but then shelve them and do nothing with them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 763
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you want change, in this manner we need to increase taxes, something this State has been not willing to do, so like pigs we wallow in our own crap.

The point I am trying to make is that we don't have enough money for wither the road network or the transit network. Should we spend more in transit, while leaving roads to become potholed-filled, bridges to fall in and not be very good for the maintenance and operation costs of the transit users that also have to use the roads. Think about this: rail is good for long transit trips only, leaving shorter trips best handled by some other mode, be it trolley, light rails, or bus, these all have to use the road; and the road most be in good repair.

Most of SEMCOG's plan shows that the funds are going to maintaining and preserving the current road system; with some improvements for safety, and to allow for the use of funds allocated for air quality improvements from the Federal Highway Adminstration. SEMCOG flexes half of the dollars available to local communities from theis pot for transit. Other highway federal highway funds are also flexed over to be used for transit.

The State's Act 51 law allocates funds for road and transit improvements through the gas tax to each county, village, city, and transit agency in the state. I would doubt that Cheboygen would give up their money in order for transit to be improved in Detroit.

What we have here is a very complicated issue. It does not get better by pitting roads against transit. In nearly all cases transit must use the same infrastructure that the single occupancy vehicle driver would. In short, we get the kind of transportation system around here that we pay for, and on a per capita basis Michigan does not raise anywhere near the amount of funds for transportation than other States with big cities.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2042
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 11:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner, I'm not sure what people's professions have to do with having good public transportation. New York has had a subway and extensive train networks for over 100 years, and aside from World War II (when Detroit had the capacity to make very specialized military products), was always a far bigger manufacturing town. Los Angeles is currently the largest manufacturing city in the U.S., and has been building rail transit like crazy. Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, and even Cleveland, are traditional heavy-industry towns, but seem to have found a need for public transportation. So cut the crap--Detroit is on the wrong end of this issue.

As Professorscott noted above, Detroit is the ONLY major city in the U.S. that thinks public transportation is a luxury. The economic performance and resilience of the region speaks to this. But it seems, as you explained above, there are many who wish nothing more than to see Detroit stuck in the past, namely the 1950s.

And for the record, not everyone in DC is a bureaucrat. I, for one, am an engineer. Then again, for someone who sees only more roads as plausible, I wouldn't expect you to be open to anything other than your own misinformed opinion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 764
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An engineer? Do ya drive the subway train? :-)
(Yes I am kidding, by your interests shown, you are probably civil or environmental?)

Back to the main focus, I found this in my morning clippings:

Build upon the good. Ridership up 22 percent on Amtrak in the corridor.

http://www.mlive.com/news/aane ws/index.ssf?/base/news-20/116 7406827269730.xml&coll=2

We got to start somewhere, this looks promising.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2161
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 11:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

As Professorscott noted above, Detroit is the ONLY major city in the U.S. that thinks public transportation is a luxury.



Talk about cutting the crap...

Detroit is NOT a major city any longer and hasn't been for decades. WSU and UoD are NOT major universities, and they never were and never will be. BTW, many small communities across the nation house major colleges or universities.

As a region, Metro Detroit's still heavily populated, but none of that is on account of the city of Detroit, which makes up less than 20% of the metropolitan population, and many in Detroit are functionally illiterate welfare recipients with few (none for many) work skills. Pray tell, but just where might people like that need to get to? And need a train, to boot!

The vast majority of the 80% who don't live in Detroit seldom have good reasons to go to Detroit. And when they do, it's usually for nonessential purposes, which they could easily do without (and often don't bother going). So why should those living outside the city have to continually pay with their increased taxes for some "train set" that Detroit never gets for Christmas because its parents cannot afford one?

And don't expect any white knights to ever come by and save the day with loads of money. Nobody cares...
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 236
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

NOT a major city? How do you explain the place we stand on the largest city list? We are currently at 11th, not at 236th. Oh, and we happen to be larger than San Francisco, Seattle, Jacksonville, Memphis, Boston, Denver, DC, etc.

I know from personal experience that Boston and DC have very good transit systems. DC has the best subway that I have ever ridden on. Boston has a very good, extensive network. Both of these cities are smaller than us and have great transit. Seattle has the streetcars and those are good. Their buses also don't pollute as much.

Wayne State has GREAT potential to be a large university. It is no longer a commuter school, and last I checked, had roughly the same standards for standardized testing in order to get in. So don't ever say never, LY.

I can guarantee you that when a couple of large corporations come downtown, people will be begging for a decent transportation system (ala Trains, Light Rail). Also, think about the sporting events downtown. I would love to take the bus to Tigers afternoon games, but since they don't run on Sundays, I can't. And what about Wings or Lions games? People may want easier access to those games. And if JLA gets moved to Foxtown (like it should), we are going to need expansion of the people mover to accommodate it. Don't ever question why we need transportation. If you want to drive, be my guest, but we have done that for far too long.

SCS100 (slightly pissed)
Top of pageBottom of page

Innovator
Member
Username: Innovator

Post Number: 50
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Detroit is NOT a major city any longer and hasn't been for decades. WSU and UoD are NOT major universities, and they never were and never will be. BTW, many small communities across the nation house major colleges or universities."

What's your point here? Yeah, maybe the CoD doesn't have a major, nationally well known university. Is that the only determinant of a major city? I think the point that should be kept in sight here is that the building-outward, sprawl mentality isn't going to work any more. There's a reason that there's a movement back to mass transit and transit-oriented development across most of the country. People are realizing again that density and having a focus of the region (i.e., a revitalized CoD) is an asset that provides economic benefits that we should be trying to improve. Just because this region screwed up and went in the wrong direction doesn't mean we shouldn't try and change course.

"and many in Detroit are functionally illiterate welfare recipients with few (none for many) work skills. Pray tell, but just where might people like that need to get to?"

I disagree with your characterization of the residents. While Detroit might have a higher-than-average proportion of functionally illiterate welfare recipients the majority of Detroit residents are honest, hard-working people. Fundamentally, given the choice between spending our money on road expansion and increasing opportunity for those who live in the city and those who want to be able to live a car-free life, I think we should take the latter. We don't need "white knights" to come and save the city. Granted, we probably won't get 5 billion dollars from the feds to just lay something down, like a Boston or NYC might receive. But even developing and improving our transit system in a piecewise fashion is better than just throwing our hands up and saying "Nobody cares...". Get a damn grip. You've made your point about a gazillion times that the odds are against this region and this city. Why don't you step out of the way while other people are trying to do something about it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 238
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Innovator, did it take you as long to write that as it took me? :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 768
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Major City or not, it is largely irrevlevant as we are dealing with a system that is much larger than the City itself and includes about 5.5 million if you include all of the region and Essex/Lambton Counties in Canada.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2044
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

According to the U.S. Census, the Detroit MSA has about 4.5 million people (does not include Washtenaw County or Genesee County). This is the 10th largest metropolitan area in the nation. Is that not big enough?

As long as people without cars (or who can't, or choose not to drive) are second-class citizens, Detroit will suffer economic inefficiencies that cities with well-developed transit don't have.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agree with Detroitplanner: Amtrak has been making significant gains. The current short-term plan to increase Amtrak service in the Detroit to Ann Arbor corridor is a good start. I would suggest it be slightly rethought to include increased service in the Detroit to Pontiac (and can we include Flint?) corridor, especially since we will be more or less without the Lodge for a while.

This pilot project will not cost very much money and will give us some idea of what kind of ridership we could expect if we made some of the capital improvements called for in the Parsons plan. If the potential ridership proves strong enough, that would (at least, may) justify putting light rail on the eastern portion of the corridor to make some necessary connections.

Much of the money the governments here have spent over the past fifty years have directly subsidized sprawl, and it's worked: our urbanized land mass has grown drastically while our regional population has essentially been flat. The result is we now have more roads than we can ever hope to maintain.

Certainly, we will need to put more money into infrastructure than we have done in the past. SEMCOG has hit the nail on the head there. Michigan is not an especially high-tax state; we ought to be able to find the political guts to sell the public on the need for additional money to make basic infrastructure repairs and improvements.

Livernoisyard carps about Detroit's shrinking importance, and his facts are undeniable. This means from a transportation-planning viewpoint we must also think about how to connect suburban communities to each other. This has been done with the highways (I-696, I-275, M-59, M-53) but suburb-to-suburb transit has proven to be a tough nut to crack.

All the current rapid-transit plans and concepts focus more on Detroit because it's where the best corridors exist with the proper densities and so forth. But at some point we also have to think about the needs of people whose daily trips remain outside the D.

Much to think about! Again, glad to see so many people doing the thinking. Hopefully our political leaders and regional planners are starting to catch up with the public and the business community on these issues.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2163
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

According to the U.S. Census, the Detroit MSA has about 4.5 million people (does not include Washtenaw County or Genesee County). This is the 10th largest metropolitan area in the nation. Is that not big enough?




BTW, quit giving us engineers in Detroit a bad name, Danny. Engineers in the real world are constantly in contact with cost-benefit analyses. Apparently the cost aspect of "engineering" in DC is a foreign concept. Stow this normative BS of yours that Detroit needs rapid transit.

Maybe in a decade or two when Detroit and its surroundings clearly demonstrate an actual need for it. There's none of that now.

The city of Detroit (now a poor location for a rail hub anyway} only has some 20% of the MSA's population and is steadily decreasing--a bad sign in and of itself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 245
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't know about a direct line to Flint, since I am not familiar with the rail lines. It would be hard enough to get to Pontiac, since CN owns the lines and hates passenger travel on their rails (again see Amtrak vs. CN).

No need LY???? Look at what I said about sporting events. Everyone in the Pointes is bullshitted by SMART every Sunday! The buses only run downtown Monday - Saturday. And since Auburn Hills is in the middle of nowhere, it might be nice to have a line up there so we can actually get to Pistons games, as opposed to having to contend with traffic on 75 all the time. And if Detroit is a poor location for a rail hub, where would you have it be? Troy?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY,

Cost-benefit is a foreign concept in the transportation world generally.

Go back to 1940 and demonstrate that we need all the freeways we built. Equally impossible. Go back to 1975 and demonstrate that M-53 needs to be an expressway from 18 1/2 Mile Road to 34 Mile Road. Not only impossible but ridiculous.

We've spent billions building things that we didn't need and that didn't benefit us. Now we are where we are.

Most big cities, 20 to 40 years ago, were headed in the same direction as we were, but they all made changes to reverse sprawl somewhat and keep more people living closer to where infrastructure already existed. One piece of that puzzle is transit; there are many other pieces. We haven't done a damned thing and look where we are.

Prof. Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 247
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well stated Professor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2045
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Professor Scott,

There is a subtle, but important distinction that needs to be made regarding the Ann Arbor-Detroit corridor. The plan is not, as you state, to increase current Amtrak service along the corridor.

The current proposal on the table is for a commuter service between Ann Arbor and Detroit, potentially *operated* by Amtrak (as Amtrak does in several other cities). SEMCOG is negotiating with Amtrak to see what it would cost to operate this service.

Amtrak does not have the equipment, nor would Amtrak intercity equipment be appropriate, for commuter service in the Ann Arbor-Detroit corridor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is anyone here a member of trainorders.com? I believe that the Capitol Corridor is operated in this manner. If not, I'm positive there is a route in California that is it's own route but uses Amtrak equipment. I'm just not sure of which one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2164
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So overspending even more on rapid transit is justified for a city embracing bankruptcy?

Please advise, especially the part concerning the minor details (to be yet worked out, I'm sure) about where the money will ever come from. I'll bite: this is a story line for an upcoming issue of The Onion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 251
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't see Detroit paying for the commuter routes. That would be region wide. The people mover is supposed to be private funding and Detroit investment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2046
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Livernoisyard just outed himself as a roadway engineer. That would explain a lot about his anti-transit bias.

Now, for that cost-benefit stuff, let me share an example:

http://www.narpac.org/METROLRP .HTM

quote:

The National Capital Region's investment in Metro over the years exceeds $9 billion; to replace the system today would cost $22 billion



quote:

Metrorail supports economic development by providing tax revenues, development opportunities, and employment. Between 1994 and 2010 *in Virginia alone*, Metrorail will generate an estimated $2.1 billion in tax revenues and 91,000 permanent jobs and provide a *19 percent annual return on investment* (emphasis mine). Region-wide, Metro has already generated more than $15 billion in increased value at station sites, and the Urban Land Institute estimates the Metrorail system will have contributed $25 billion of commercial, office and retail growth by 2010.



Seems to me that at least in Metro's case, the benefit/cost ratio exceeds 1.0. How does Detroit's massive freeway system compare?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2165
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The people mover is supposed to be private funding and Detroit investment.



Again, this is more normative--"You ought to do xxx."--BS. There are no hard engineering, political, or economic facts for any of that. It's mostly wishful thinking and pipe dreaming. Back to your studying for your mid-terms.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 188
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Meantime, Detroit (the city, not the region) has more lane-miles of freeway per capita than any other big city on Earth."

I'm curious about your source for this data. Almost all of the sources I am aware of report freeway mileage by MSA.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc,

You are of course correct. The short term plan is for Amtrak to operate the service under contract.

LY,

Who pays for all these highways we keep building? Who is going to pay to widen I-75, to rebuild and widen I-94? Who paid to expand M-59 and M-53?

I suggest that same set of organizations rethink how they spend their money and what the effects of that expenditure are, that's all. Note also that the City of Detroit did not pay for any of the aforementioned projects, not even those which have or may run through the City.

All the money for everything our governments do, good and bad, come from local, state and federal tax dollars. The point is to reallocate and spend more wisely, not to just keep doing the boneheaded things we've done up to now and somehow expecting to get different results.

Let me ask you LY: are you OK with what we spend every year for additional road capacity that we can't afford to maintain, in a region with zero population growth, or do you also think that's foolish? Just curious where you are on that one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 252
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 2:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I recall reading somewhere that they were going to drop the federal grant and try for private funding. Can anyone find that part of it? And LY, you can go back to working on destroying the area with more freeways.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2047
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Again, this is more normative--"You ought to do xxx."--BS. There are no hard engineering, political, or economic facts for any of that. It's mostly wishful thinking and pipe dreaming. Back to your studying for your mid-terms.



See my post above.

I don't know about you, but I would KILL if I could earn 19% a year on my 401(k).
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 58
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 2:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think there's any circumstance in which I would commit murder over a retirement account, Dan, but 19% is pretty good.

Scs100, the current thing being bounced around with regard to the People Mover does not include any notion of federal funding. The Ann Arbor plans are to implement (with no federal funding) the short-term Amtrak-operated commuter rail service, but the endgame is to use that to try to justify a federal "New Starts" project.

Remember, we're paying for rapid transit in other cities through our federal taxes; we just aren't getting the money back. That's one of the reasons Michigan has been a "donor state" with regard to transportation for many years.

Ro_resident, coming up with that datum is very hard work indeed. No city has any standardized way of reporting lane-miles of freeway at all, and most freeways are state operated in the US and not reported on at the city level. Outside the US, it's even worse. And the place I saw this no longer reports on Detroit at all, because it only reports information for cities over 1 million population. It's an old piece of information, perhaps 25 years old, but I doubt anything's changed to kick Detroit out of first place. It was a statistical abstract based on an on-the-ground study but I don't remember where I have it; the fact stuck in my craw.

It's important to keep to larger cities; of course in Michigan, Pleasant Ridge probably has more lane-miles of freeway per capita than anyplace else, because of how I-696 was done unto them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 253
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 2:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Professor. I just meant the people mover, in regards to funding. The Amtrak part I knew about.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 255
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 6:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Model D has an article about MDOT's vision for transportation in the next 30 years.

http://www.modeldmedia.com/inthenews/mdot77.aspx

There is also a large article pertaining to the people mover and commuter service.

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/wtransit77.aspx

(Message edited by SCS100 on January 16, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 59
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 6:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the links Scs100. In particular, I encourage everybody to take the MDOT survey (a link to this is on the first of the two web sites Scs100 referred to). I encourage you to do so, regardless of whether you agree with my views; MDOT has to hear from a variety of people in order to make good decisions.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 256
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 6:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No problem. They aren't going to like what I said to them. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Back to the original purpose of this thread: I think Woodward and Gratiot are both at least as good and possibly better choices of corridor than Detroit to Ann Arbor. East Jefferson would also work, and some form of transit line through southwest Detroit and downriver.

Suburb-to-suburb is tougher. In order for a transit line to work in suburban areas, you need space for parking and drop-off at least at some of the stations, you need to connect to the walkable downtown areas like Royal Oak or Birmingham, and you need to physically put the line somewhere which would involve removing traffic lanes.

What corridors would work for such a purpose do y'all think?
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 258
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They could shrink E. Jefferson down a bit and send it up near Alter and onto Mack and into the Pointes. No way would Woodward work, directly. They would need to stick it near, but not on.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 773
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SCS, that of course would depend upon the mode chosen, I think you are pre-assuming one mode (heavy rail). Streetcars used to run this strip without a problem. Busses now run it. An alternatives analysis would have to be done to receive federal funds (this is why SEMCOG had to cut back the A-2 project to something more manageable). The Woodward corridor does have an opportunity to run all of these modes since there is a rail line that runs just east of the road.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 260
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep. My bad, I was assuming heavy rail. With streetcars, it would be a lot easier to do (and in my opinion, a lot easier).
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 61
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 11:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Streetcars, actually a modern version thereof, are the most common system now for any region reimplementing rapid transit. Old fashioned streetcars were no more rapid than are buses; the big difference between an old streetcar and a bus is tracks and overhead electric lines.

Modern streetcars can be built to have their own running way in the street (certain design features in to keep cars off the tracks) and can have signal preemption and other things that make them run unimpeded by traffic and therefore (under my definition) rapid.

Now, true Bus Rapid Transit does all those things as well, and I'm not prima facie opposed to that, but light rail has proven more popular because most regions that have tried to implement BRT have cut out so many features (to save money) that it loses its rapid-transit nature.

And the two most critical thing about any transit mode such as that are:

(1) its connectedness to other modes: existing bus routes, bicycling, taxi service, people who drive part of their trip, intercity train and bus stations, airports, etc.

(2) its connectedness to places people want to go: city central business areas, universities, hospitals, major regional shopping districts, public entertainment facilities and so on.

So designing a single mode without regard to those two things tends to lead to failure, or at least very limited success.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 6
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

After light rail lines on the "spokes", the highest suburb to suburb priorities would be to connect larger population centers together with the airport. M-59 for Mt.Clemens to Pontiac, to Southfield via Telegraph. 8 Mile, 12 Mile, 16 Mile, Van Dyke, Merriman would be next. If you notice, these lines run very near to several malls, at least two community colleges, and major employers like the GM and Ford Technical Centers. The only bottleneck area I can think of would be 12 Mile through the Rochester/Livernois area. 11 Mile and 13 Mile aren't much better thru here either.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 189
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Professorscott, your statistic about Detroit may have been true at one time. But I would suspect that Houston now holds the title of the large city with the most lane miles of freeway per capita.

I did a back of the envelope calculation--Detroit ranks in the bottom third in the region for lane miles per capita. There are roughly 3 lane feet per person in the city.

Detroit is nestled between Ypsi Township and the City of Monroe. (That's for communities that have freeways within their borders; also using the 2000 Census.)

Suprisingly, Pleasant Ridge doesn't make the cut. The city borders the 696 south service drive.

And trust me, I believe the region could use more transit and transit options.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 778
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Now, true Bus Rapid Transit does all those things as well, and I'm not prima facie opposed to that, but light rail has proven more popular because most regions that have tried to implement BRT have cut out so many features (to save money) that it loses its rapid-transit nature."

Professor:

Can you support this statement with several examples?
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 706
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DP, I believe Boston's silverline runs in mixed traffic for portions of its route.

York Region (north of Toronto) has a new BRT system, but the only BRT aspects of its system is limited stops and pre-boarding ticket purchase. Eventually they wish to add bus only lanes and signal prioritization (www.vivayork.com).

From what I understand, Ottawa's transitway is the only true BRT in North America (although even parts of the transitway run in mixed traffic or have bus only lanes that are not grade separated and are subject to the same traffic signals as other vehicles). For the most part, Ottawa's transitway is grade separated and the roads are bus only. The transitway also has numerous under and overpasses to avoid traffic lights, etc. There is currently a push to upgrade portions of this system to light rail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Upinottawa is correct DP. Los Angeles actually did it in a very interesting, and possibly useful to us, way. They looked at all the operating characteristics of BRT, and realized that many regions spend 80% of the money (80% of what you would need to implement "True BRT") and got 20% of the benefit. LA asked: can we spend 40% of the money and get 80% of the benefit?

I would recommend, for Detroit, BRT on some corridors and light rail on others, if I were to get the job of recommending. (When I say "Detroit" I mean the region. When I want to specify the City of Detroit, I'll use the whole phrase. By the way.) On the BRT corridors, studying LA's implementation might be very helpful.

Ottawa has always stated publicly that it considers BRT a "stepping stone" to light rail incidentally.

Here in Detroit, the various times BRT has come up during other studies (such as AA-D), it has been explicitly stated that BRT can be implemented inexpensively because it can run in traffic for much of its length.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 782
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Silverline is that way because they have very tight roads in the middle of the City. I have seen pics where that line is indeed a mess, but it has to do more with the density of the land use around it than them going half-assed with it. Heck parts of it are underground!

Hey that got me thinking about a source that might have all of this BRT info together, and I found Wiki! Man that stuff is great. Lots of room to discuss pros/cons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B us_rapid_transit

I was able to find that the people most upset about the LA Buslanes seemed to be those in the single occupancy vehicles as it took away parking spaces and automobile capacity. That would not be an issue on many roads around here. Gratiot, Grand River, Big Beaver, Telegraph to name a few. It would be spotty along Michigan, Woodward, Van Dyke.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 768
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't forget Pittsburgh when discussing BRT.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 63
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 1:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DP,

And just to clarify: I am not opposed to BRT. I think Detroit needs a combination of many things, and BRT would certainly be a good fit on some corridors. I especially think it would help to crack the suburb-to-suburb problem and provide a good benefit to some second-tier transit corridors City-to-suburb.

For the "prime" corridors like Woodward and Gratiot, I think we need some combination of local buses, light rail and commuter rail. And most critically, any enhanced transit mode has to tie in to existing modes (of transportation, not just transit).

But (as Dennis Miller used to sarcastically intone) that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. :-)

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 784
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not opposed to any mode, I just think all should be studied before thouroughly prior to making any statements that A is better than B. Heck in some cases if B is better than A, and the voters will only give you enough money to build improvement A. What do you do? Nothing?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed. And if we follow the proper planning process on a corridor, we start out giving all modes consideration and studying thoroughly as you suggest. I'm just going with what I know based on what I have seen in other regions. (One of the advantages of being last to do a thing is you have the opportunity to learn from everyone else's mistakes.)

The essential problem with the corridor that was studied is it's too long to be a transit corridor. That doesn't totally kill the idea, just makes it more complicated. Woodward would have been better, probably best, and I don't know why that didn't come first.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2056
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From what I've read, Bostonians would much rather have the old Orange Line elevated than the new Silver Line bus. Just something to think about....
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1842
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A note about SEMCOG's plans:

Because of the way they categorize projects, a lot of projects that are primarily for one purpose (such as repaving or replacing a decrepit bridge) but also include an extra lane are not considered a expansion by SEMCOG.

Similarly, a portion of SEMCOG's projects are for the purpose of "safety." Safety is usually improved by adding turn or acel/decel lanes. In short, there are too many fender benders because the roads are congested, so we add capacity to make them safer.

IMHO SEMCOG is the most structurally incompetent organization in the state. (Right ahead of the City of Detroit.) The executive leadership prides itself on reaching consensus. But all that really does is ignore or postpone difficult discussions. The voting structure bears no resemblance to the population or the transportation needs of the region, but that doesn't really matter, because the voters just rubber stamp what they are presented with and have little chance to comment or object. The real decisions happen behind the scenes and probably often behind closed doors.

I believe it must be abolished in place of a regional council with representatives elected by the same districts as the state house. This body should also replace the other quasi-governments of regional importance, including the HCMA (Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority), and bodies overseeing the airport, water/sewer system, and convention center.

That said, there are a number of great people working for SEMCOG. They have developed great technical capabilities. But unfortunately, they work for poor leadership in a poor structure.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 65
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 11:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jsmyers,

SEMCOG is our regional MPO, for better or for worse. Individual counties are not required to use them for transportation planning (St. Clair County, for instance, does not), but transportation plans must at least go through SEMCOG in order to qualify for the almighty federal dollar.

A group of entities sued a few years ago based on concern about SEMCOG's organizational structure, the problems you refer to, but the lawsuit was not successful.

I agree with part of your conclusion but not the other part, and I also agree SEMCOG has a very capable and qualified staff. I think a different structure for SEMCOG along the lines of HCMA would be more effective than what we have now. (Shit, man, anything would be more effective than what we have now.) But I would not touch HCMA itself, it succeeds partly because its scope is very well defined and limited.

This touches upon one of the great difficulties of programming transit. The highway system was built by the state (an entity which exists) with funds coming in part from the federal government (another entity which exists). The state tells us transit should be built by "the region", a nonexistent thing.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1843
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just went through and read back through much of this thread.

Thank you Professorscott for your input. It is a welcome addition. (I wonder if you are the same Professorscott that I had one course with a few years ago?)

Trainman, I think you need to read /i{Taking the High Road} edited by Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes. (http://www.brookings.edu/press /books/takingthehighroad.htm) In some ways you have good ideas that I agree with. You want the state fuel tax to pay for transit and not local taxes (usually property or sales). I can't really disagree with that, but I believe your understanding of the issues at hand and potential solutions is lacking. I think you might find the book enjoyable and enlightening.

Livernoisyard, Who pisses in your corn flakes every morning? Looking through the thread, I can only find one constructive statement you've made.
quote:

Well, although it's nowhere as busy as it was, freight still is active there near Livernois Yard, and having passenger service would be problematic because most of the parallel multiple tracks have been pulled during the nation-wide railroad rationalization during the 1970s and 1980s.


What LY fails to understand (or maybe wants to hide from us) is that the cost of adding back some of these tracks is minuscule (compared to even repaving a highway) and the need for them will be evaluated before the service starts.

Other than that, apparently LY likes to crap on Southeast Michigan, whether it be with the truth, a half-truth, or an all-out lie. Hopefully most people reading this thread put 2 and 2 together and realize that the condition of Metro Detroit is a direct result of the line of thinking that LY propagates.

It basically amounts to "Were not good enough to deserve a future." Paraphrased even more it is basically "I give up."

(Message edited by jsmyers on January 18, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1844
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I familiar with SEMCOG. I've met some of the people involved with the MOSES law suit. I been to a general assembly, I met a lot of their staff.

This is precisely why I wrote what I wrote.

I believe it is in the states best interest to force change on SEMCOG, and it is my understanding that the state legislature has that power. I believe that SEMCOG is helping to pull the whole state down.

Is HCMA successful? I will give them efficient and prudent. But they have been taking millions of dollars of tax money away from the core of the region and pumping it into parks that are on the edge. Anybody without a car is virtually categorically denied the ability to use the parks system. HMCA won't touch parks like Rouge Park, Belle Isle, or the zoo, and I believe that is a problem.

I also think it is stupid to have more than one regional government. It makes us slow and inefficient.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 272
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think by now, LY has made his case out to be a "roads only" plan.

Anyway, thank you for summarizing half of this thread in 7 paragraphs. Makes it easier to read :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 273
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just found on Trainorders.com. Portland has obtained new streetcars. Pretty sweet looking too.

http://www.trainorders.com/dis cussion/read.php?4,1323355
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 785
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 2:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

JS, I know a lot of SEMCOG employees too. What you are saying makes little sense to me. SEMCOG personally supports transit by giving its employees free transit on DDOT or SMART as a part of its benefits package. It will also pay for parking for employees that carpool, or pay the cost of the those that vanpool too.

They even do outreach to other companies to try to get them to do the same. Here is one of their more popular publications:
http://www.semcog.org/Products /pdfs/CommuterBenefits.pdf

SEMCOG also has staff people whose jobs it is to deal with folks who want alternative commute options. They led the region into "Walkable Communities" and into placing pathways in greenways.

I think they are really leading the way when it comes to getting folks out of cars around here. The problem is, there are not many followers, but it is not from a lack to trying.

The professor stated correctly that the lawsuit was thrown out for lack of merit. If Ferndale and Detroit are so against SEMCOG, why do they pay dues and and actively participate? Federal law requires SEMCOG to make decisions based upon what is good for the region and not its members, so it is not for that reason.

If SEMCOG is such a schill or is anti-transit, why does their record say something different?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1848
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

I think they are really leading the way when it comes to getting folks out of cars around here. The problem is, there are not many followers, but it is not from a lack to trying....If SEMCOG is such a schill or is anti-transit, why does their record say something different?


I disagree. We have to understand that SEMCOG is two things at once. It is an employer and a place of work. In that respect, they do a good job.

But there other function is one of a governmental body. In that respect their record is mixed. They do everything they can but the one thing that will get results. Money. The SEMCOG decision making process has consistently spent money to expand roads and has never made substantial investments in transit.

This is not the fault of the vast majority of the people working for SEMCOG. I wouldn't be surprised if they were themselves frustrated with the direction of things.

It is a result of how SEMCOG operates as a decision making body. Often times the individual representatives for a member of SEMCOG change frequently or are not directly involved.

The result is that the County Road Commissions do most of the actual decision making within the Transportation Advisory Council.

http://www.semcog.org/AboutUs/ Overview/AdvisoryCouncils.htm# tac

Representatives are not directly encouraged to participate. They are presented with a resolution to approve a plan, and the vote is made like a bunch of lemmings not knowing where to go but with everybody else.

I lay the blame for this primarily at two places:

1. The structure
SEMCOG is a council of governments where the decision making power has no relationship to the needs or population of the region. The state and federal governments have also allowed communities to opt-out without substantial penalties. This is important because it contributes to #2 as the leadership of SEMCOG have to "make nice" with everyone so that they keep their membership.

2. Leadership
The individuals in charge at SEMCOG don't appear to like confrontation. They have publicly stated that their job is to build consensus. Part of the way this is done is by discouraging discussions. Another way is by an over-reliance on data and forecasts. (It is hard for people to argue with what they don't understand.)

What they don't do is hold public meetings and debates about the future of our region. They don't tackle the big strategic problems we face. They do little things on the margins and attempt to get everybody to nod their heads in agreement.

(Not that SEMCOG's technical expertise should be put down. To the contrary, I think it should be applauded. But no amount of number crunching by the staff can replace critical thinking and visioning by the decision makers.)

As for the lawsuit. There is a difference between legal merit and logical merit. Just because the suit was (and probably should have been) thrown out doesn't mean that those who brought it were wrong about SEMCOG.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 67
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is also worth noting that the organizational structure of SEMCOG's board is such that exurban communities have much greater voting weight per capita than inner suburban communities. This leads, with almost mathematical certainty, to decisions that encourage and subsidize further sprawl at the expense of the already-built-out areas.

Remember, our regional population is flat so sprawl here is a zero-sum game. If Macomb Township gains 10,000 residents, someplace else in the region is losing them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 786
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SMART, DDOT and AATA have always had places at the table alongside the road commissions and cities. Not once has SMART or DDOT have gone to the committees and requested additional urban money be flexed to them.

You really need to learn more about SEMCOG before you critize them so much.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread SEMCOG is the only agency moving forward with any sort of higher level mass transit. SMART isn't, DDOT isn't, AATA isn't. They would all make better candidates to operate this service as each are already transit providers. These agencies either lack the funds or the political will to do this. SEMCOG is tired of waiting. Did you see the document I put up earlier where SEMCOG's leadership (Maryann Mahaffey) determined the roadblocks from last year? Well SEMCOG breaking through the roadblocks, taking the lead and has brought in Amtrak who runs this service successfully in places out east.

It is in the best interest of everyone who wants better transit in this area to embrace this concept and support it. JS if you live in Ann Arbor, you should be on that train every time you come here. I know I am going to look to do the same only in reverse.

I suggest you take a look at who is the problem (apathetic public) and stop criticizing the organizations working to actually do something.

Lots of other MPOs operate the exact same way SEMCOG does. SEMCOG has a one person one vote procedure that kicks in should a member request it. Look what the feds said during certification (pages six-eight, and last page for chart):

http://www.semcog.org/TranPlan /assets/SEMCOG%20Certification %202003.pdf

Look at the logical merit yourself.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 676
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jsmyers last post is one of the best one I have read on any thread in a long time. No, SEMCOG isn't the only obstacle to improving transit in the region. And yes, it has provided some transit leadership on the margins. But it should be leading the charge. It can't though because its executive leadership would be replaced in a New York second as soon as it displeased LBP and the exurban township cabal with any idea that might cost a suburban household $50.00 a year or so.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2060
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My favorite thing about SEMCOG and their forecasts:

"Road congestion is expected to increase in the future. Ergo, we need to widen roads and build new freeways."

Then they build the shit, and it fills up with cars (naturally), and the cycle begins again. SEMCOG is off the hook, though, because they "correctly predicted" more congestion in the future.

THAT is the problem with SEMCOG!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1849
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An example of what I was writing about here:
quote:

A note about SEMCOG's plans:

Because of the way they categorize projects, a lot of projects that are primarily for one purpose (such as repaving or replacing a decrepit bridge) but also include an extra lane are not considered a expansion by SEMCOG.

Similarly, a portion of SEMCOG's projects are for the purpose of "safety." Safety is usually improved by adding turn or acel/decel lanes. In short, there are too many fender benders because the roads are congested, so we add capacity to make them safer.



http://webdev2.semcog.org/cgi- bin/data/subs/att-tip-sub.cfm? tipno=2001006

This is a $67 Million replacement (if I read this info right--I thought it was ~$30 Million) of the I-96 interchange at Wixom Rd. Notice that the project type is "PRESERVATION."

Does this interchange need to be fixed up a bit? Of course.

But do we need to spend tens of millions of dollars of additional money to double the capacity?
Hell NO.

For those of you that are familiar with I-96 through Novi and Wixom, this will be easy to follow, for those who are not, I hope I am clear.

This Wixom Rd. project was originally planned along with the Beck Rd. interchange (about 1 mile to the east). Before these projects were planned there was very little out there except the Ford plant. This is what the area looked like in (I believe) 2002:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=novi,+mi&ie=UTF8&om= 1&z=14&ll=42.497669,-83.523302 &spn=0.026769,0.086517&t=k&iwl oc=addr
You can see I-96 cutting a shallow diagonal and Grand River just to the south. The steeper diagonal is the CSX line that runs from Monroe to Flint. Beck Rd is the interchange with the funny jog across 96, Wixom is just to the west and is directly south of the ford plant. (Click Hybrid to see the road names on top.)

Most of the light industrial space that is directly north of the Beck Rd. Interchange is just newly being constructed and a few short years earlier was farms and woods. This view shows some of the new buildings and vacant lots:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=novi,+mi&ie=UTF8&om= 1&z=17&ll=42.500485,-83.512391 &spn=0.003346,0.010815&t=k

Some of this development is in the City of Novi, some is in the City of Wixom. These are the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from two large parts of the developments:

http://www.cityofnovi.org/Reso urces/Library/Minutes/Planning /2000/000419.htm
(Look for "Beck West Corporate")

This is the CULMA aerial photo from 1997 (72 dpi version):
http://www.culma.wayne.edu/aer ial_photos/oakland/1997/55739- 17-14.pdf
(Too bad there isn't a 1990 photo.)

There has been quite a bit of development in the 4 years since the google photo was taken.

What else is happening around there? The state sold a rest stop to a developer who built the Rock Financial Showplace. St. Johns/Providence is moving hospital beds to a new hospital at Beck and Grand River.

http://www.stjohn.org/NoviHosp ital/

Would any of this happened if almost $100 Million wouldn't have been spent to expand those two interchanges? I doubt it. Did this investment help the state? It is one of the reasons that Livonia and Southfield have high office and light industrial vacancies. We haven't grown much in terms of population or economy in the last 10 years.

Some will say the Wixom Rd. Interchange is falling apart, or the Old Beck Rd. Interchange was dangerous. They are right. But did the state need to spend the money to get this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=novi,+mi&ie=UTF8&om= 1&z=17&ll=42.493603,-83.5162&s pn=0.003346,0.010815&iwloc=add r
Here is the before:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=novi,+mi&ie=UTF8&om= 1&z=17&ll=42.493603,-83.5162&s pn=0.003346,0.010815&t=k&iwloc =addr

You don't have to be a traffic engineer to realize that this was not just a "safety enhancement" or "system preservation." The existing interchanges could be refurbished and even made safer without the added capacity.

The new interchange is almost as big as the new I-94/Telegraph interchange (The are the first 2 SPUIs in the state).

The new Wixom interchange will be just as big in a few short years.

Right now it is this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=novi,+mi&ie=UTF8&om= 1&z=17&ll=42.497827,-83.536112 &spn=0.003346,0.010815&t=k&iwl oc=addr

In a nutshell, this is how SEMCOG tells us they are either "improving safety" or "preserving the system." While in reality, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars so exurban fringe developers can make money off of businesses relocating from other parts of the region.

So who says we don't have the money for transit? That is $100 Million for 2 new interchanges.

Go here and search other projects upcoming (It looks like projects before 2005 are not in this database) to see how much we are spending:
http://webdev2.semcog.org/cgi- bin/data/att-tip.cfm

Widen M-59 for 3.6 miles? Thats $55 Million
http://webdev2.semcog.org/cgi- bin/data/subs/att-tip-sub.cfm? tipno=2000497
New 696 interchange at Franklin? Thats $18 Million
http://webdev2.semcog.org/cgi- bin/data/subs/att-tip-sub.cfm? tipno=2000854

These are just a few examples of how our SEMCOG is helping to subsidize the states demise.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1850
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DetroitPlanner,

You both make some good points and help me make my point in the post where you write this:
quote:

It is in the best interest of everyone who wants better transit in this area to embrace this concept and support it. JS if you live in Ann Arbor, you should be on that train every time you come here. I know I am going to look to do the same only in reverse.

I suggest you take a look at who is the problem (apathetic public) and stop criticizing the organizations working to actually do something.

Lots of other MPOs operate the exact same way SEMCOG does. SEMCOG has a one person one vote procedure that kicks in should a member request it.



No I don't live in Ann Arbor. I did for a little more than 2 years when I was in school. Then I lived in the Cass Corridor and then a very short tenure in Brush Park before I moved to a different state in pursuit of a significant other (now fiancée) with a very narrow carrier field.

I've traveled Amtrak to Detroit from AA to see a Tigers game, and when I was in Detroit and she lived in AA she traveled it quite frequently as well. I agree. Use it or loose it. I just hope it is set up to be useful and not set up to fail.

I don't agree, but there are some in the community who believe that SEMCOG is "cooking the books" with respect to the AA to Detroit study. I'm inclined to think they might be overly conservative but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are right that SEMCOG is the only one doing something. You are right that the public being apathetic is a problem. But lets look deeper.

Should DDOT or the AATA be leading a regional planning initiative? I hope not. SMART deserves a lot of criticism for a lot of things, and considering the way SEMCOG operates, they should be on the lead of a Woodward Corridor study to look at LRT/BRT/CRT. But SMART has no authority to work on AA-DET.

But they way you wrote that post made me realize that maybe SEMCOG, despite being the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) doesn't really do much planning. They are a body that takes request for funding and then goes through a process to decide what gets funding. This would be a bottom up rather than a top down approach to planning I guess. The problem is that regional rapid transit is a risky, difficult problem that requires a champion. DARTA should have been that champion, but I won't get into that.

Part of my problem with SEMCOG is that they tend to have an attitude (as an organization) that everything either isn't their problem or that we are too poor to solve our problems. While they are claiming weakness and poverty they are spreading hundreds of millions of dollars around the region to expand our highways.

I'm familiar with the roadblocks document. With the AA-Det project, SEMCOG is addressing some of them. But SEMCOG doesn't have the backbone to ask the tough questions and demand answers. (For instance, where is the operating funding going to come from for a new start.) The organization waits for others to do that.

While you are right about public apathy. I doubt our public apathy is much different than in any other city. (Except that people are tired of getting their hopes up.) What is different is the public outreach of SEMCOG.

Every SEMCOG outreach event I have ever been to has been one of two things:

1. A technical, highly detail oriented presentation and then diffuse criticism event.
or
2. A touchy-feely, "your opinion matters" meeting, where the public really isn't sure what the purpose is or how to ask for what they want.

Granted, I haven't been to every type of meeting SEMCOG does, and a lot of them (maybe most) I have been to have been run by consultants, but SEMCOG needs to work on making information digestible to the general public in a meaningful way. Have you seen the AA-Det site?
http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/

SEMCOG won't apparently try to get the public excited about possibilities. This great Daniel Burnham quote
quote:

Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work. Remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die.


isn't SEMCOG's creed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 790
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 7:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've been to the site, unfortunately I think there is a trend where consultants slap those together for every plan they get. There are a lot of those out there. They all suck. I have a feeling that either new contracts will address these or these will fall out of favor. SAFTEA-LU requires more visulization techniques than the prior transportation bills. What you see in these sites is more of a check the box by the consultants than anything else.

Quiz:

Can you name the Daniel Burnham Buildings in Detroit?

What was his contribution to Cleveland?

(Message edited by Detroitplanner on January 18, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1853
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What you see in these sites is more of a check the box by the consultants than anything else.



That is the problem. I've seen other sites out there which do a better job of describing what is going on.

Ford building and the Dime Building.

Not sure about Cleveland....
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 794
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:08 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow ya got one I was not thinking of. Yep according to Ferry's Building of Detroit those are both Burnham Works.

You missed the most classic Burnham, the Whitney Building. I can recall going to my dentist there as a boy. We would hop on the Joy Rd bus and go down Dexter to Downtown for my appointments.

Damm!! I'm beginning to sound like Jjaba! I'm only 40!

In Cleveland he did the downtown plan that included the convention center, and located the train station at the end of a mall similar to the one in DC. That park is now called Burnham Mall.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 76
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 2:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dexter is an interesting bus line - it is one of the only DDOT bus routes that never was a streetcar. It is also one of the most heavily traveled routes in the DDOT system to this day.

Could y'all tell me who this "Burnham" fellow is or was? I've lived here for quite a while but I'm from New York, so I don't know all the local history.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5049
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 3:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Burnham wasn't just some local fellow. This guys was a premiere architect and planner during his lifetime, and his work is all over this country, with one of his most famous building's being in your very own New York: The Flatiron. Do a quick google search or wiki search on the guy. He left a big mark on Chicago, his hometown that he grew up in, and the Midwest, but his works can be seen in other parts of the county, too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 190
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 9:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Daniel Burnham is most closely associated with Chicago and the 'City Beautiful' school of thought--that good space will lead to good lives.

He created the downtown design of Chicago and was in charge of World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. It was one of the first--if not first--comprehensively designed communities. As a side note, my wife recently gave me a copy of 'Devil in the White City' about Burnham and events at the Chicago exposition. It is next on my list of books.

As to some of what Jsmyers says above, there is certainly some truth to what he says. However, I would say there is no mandate for SEMCOG to do comprehensive land use controls. That would require an act of the legislature. Given the fractured nature of the region, I would see an authoritarian organization--one that has real teeth to do comprehensive land use controls (a la Portland, OR) quickly crumbling in short order. Given our history, use and misuse of home rule, racism, economics, distrust, distribution of taxes, etc.

On the plus side, SEMCOG does appear to bring the most of the communities together and to agree on something. Wayne County vs Detroit; Detroit vs Oakland; Oakland vs Wayne; Ferndale vs Oakland. For the most part, they are all there.

From what I heard, other MPOs around the nation did pay attention to the lawsuit regarding representation. However, the plaintiffs were never able to get Detroit to join the suit. Detroit was supposed to be the biggest benefactor of any changes.

As I understand it, voting members of the main committee of SEMCOG have to be elected officials. For Detroit to bring on another voting voice, either the clerk or another city council member would have to be admitted. That would put the mayor in the position of being overruled by his own council. So, ironically, a lawsuit about unequal representation (of one type) was potentially stymied because of the potential for unequal representation (of another type).

Politics, it is dirty business.
Top of pageBottom of page

El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo

Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ro_resident,

"Devil in the White City" is a fantastic book. It is interesting for non-planners but is even more fascinating to those of us that are.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 796
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 9:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My dad read devil in the white city last year. He just praised the book. Funny, I thought it was just because he don't like white people. I guess I am wrong.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1856
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

As to some of what Jsmyers says above, there is certainly some truth to what he says. However, I would say there is no mandate for SEMCOG to do comprehensive land use controls. That would require an act of the legislature. Given the fractured nature of the region, I would see an authoritarian organization--one that has real teeth to do comprehensive land use controls (a la Portland, OR) quickly crumbling in short order. Given our history, use and misuse of home rule, racism, economics, distrust, distribution of taxes, etc.


Whoa there!

I didn't say anything about "comprehensive land use controls." I believe that SEMCOG can be more proactive in creating the overall transportation plan for the region, including the public policy discussions that they don't (or barely) tackle now. I also think they should do more to connect land use planning with transportation planning in a true two-way fashion (which they haven't done yet, but it is my understanding that at least on a staff level, they are working on it.)

They don't have a mandate for land use controls, but that doesn't mean that can't be more proactive about the region's transportation system.

For those of you who have an interest in Metro Detroit Transit, I encourage you to attend TRU's meeting on Monday 1/22/07 at 6:30 in the Guardian Building. More information is at their website:

http://www.detroittransit.org/ meetings.php

Here is a freep brief about it:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070117/NEW S02/701170416/1004
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 803
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here is an employer offering free train rides already!

http://www.mlive.com/news/aane ws/index.ssf?/base/news-21/116 9135072156430.xml&coll=2
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2062
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An aside on Burnham:

Burnham's contribution to Cleveland is now known as the "Mall Plan". In this plan, he grouped six civic buildings around a mall, all in a neoclassical design: City Hall, Federal Reserve Bank, Public Hall (convention center), Post Office, U.S. District Court, and one that eludes me right now.

The train station was rendered, but was never built. On site of the proposed train station is the current Amshack. The same site has been proposed for a new rail station, should the Ohio Hub rail plan come to fruition.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 805
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the expansion Dan I was a bit foggy when I answered previously.

What is most impressive is there was a relative short distance between this station and Terminal Tower (which is still used for commuter trains).

I do recall staying at the Marriot on the mall one weekend and being very impressed by the mall area so I read up on it, that however was years ago.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1859
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just saw that too Detroitplanner.

Just to be clear for everybody that isn't familiar with this AA-Howell Idea.

The railroad that goes roughly north/south through Ann Arbor is owned by a small company that has been working with Ann Arbor area leadership on possible commuter rail.

This is different and separate from the Ann Arbor to Detroit study most of this thread has been about. That project is lead by SEMCOG and at this point is concerned with contracting (probably with Amtrak) to operate a demonstration line on the Norfolk Southern rail line that runs roughly East-West through Ann Arbor.

You can see the two rail lines here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&q=ann+arbor,+mi&ie=UTF 8&om=1&z=14&ll=42.294453,-83.7 41055&spn=0.028633,0.086517

Aside about Michigan rail history and infrastructure -
This EW route started as the Michigan Central railroad, later becoming part of NY Central and briefly Penn Central before they went bankrupt and Conrail was created. Conrail was dissolved, with the major railroads in the East, Norfolk Southern and CSX dividing up most of the pieces.

From what I understand, there are a few reasons that this NS route is not heavily used by freight.

First of all is Michigan geography. Except for the tunnels in Port Huron and Detroit, there is no opportunity for through traffic. The tunnel in Detroit is too short for many loads, and the tunnel in Port Huron connects to GTW/CN routes that bypass the old Michigan Central on both sides.

Second is the fact that NS has two other lines to send freight to Chicago and other places west or south. One goes to Monroe and Toledo and the second goes past the airport through Belleville, Adrian and into Ohio. The result is that only traffic accessing cities such as Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids and local traffic along the line in the region use it.

West of Kalamazoo was abandoned to Amtrak since it was of so little use for freight. This is why Amtrak and the state have been able to invest money on a new signaling system and have been increasing speeds. I believe they are up to 95 mph now and existing technology will allow 110 mph.

(http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0 ,1607,7-151-9620_11057-25795-- ,00.html)

The potential exists to add more 2-track rail and make more upgrades to the signaling system and have the Amtrak Detroit-Chicago (or Kalamazoo, or Battle Creek) run be shortened significantly.


What many on this forum don't realize is that the Ann Arbor to Detroit study isn't just about Detroit. It is about connected 4 vibrant downtowns, and 3 university important to the state's economy. This article from Ypsi helps demonstrate my point along with the article Detroitplanner linked.

http://www.easternecho.com/cgi -bin/story.cgi?11588

Riders won't just be people in Ann Arbor that work in Detroit, they will be people going to EMU, UofM, UofM hospital, St. Joe, Pfizer, and the countless other destinations in that area.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 713
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^ including DTW (hopefully).

With respect to bring the 4 daily Via trains to Detroit, there are several options.

1) a shuttle bus running from Windsor's Walkerville Station to the Detroit station (delivering Windsor passengers to Detroit and bringing Detroit passengers to Windsor)

2) preclearing of Windsor passengers at the Walkerville station prior to heading to Detroit (US Customs would board the train in Windsor at the station before the train proceeds to Detroit). This would be similar to what happens when one flies from Toronto to Detroit, i.e. US customs is situated in Toronto.

3) US customs at the actual border (probably the least desired option)

4) US customs at the Detroit station, i.e. the Canadian passengers bound for the US would get checked upon arrival at the Detroit station rather than immediately after the train crosses the border (like at an international airport)

I think the best options are 2 and 4, but the shuttle bus would be reasonable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 302
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good plan, Ottawa. 2 and 4 are the best. What about customs for 1? Would 3 go with it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 714
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Customs for option 1 would have to be the same as any other highway conveyance -- essentially it would be another version of the "tunnel bus" or the Greyhound and would be inspected at the port of entry (either the bridge or vehicle tunnel).

Option 3 would see the train cross at the border and the train and passengers would be inspected by US customs at the actual border, i.e. would not be allowed to travel inland until customs checks are completed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 79
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just so y'all know, anything that involves cross-border trains is unlikely. There used to be a train from Chicago to Toronto via Port Huron, but after 9/11 it became logistically impossible to manage so they ended that route. The former line now terminates in Port Huron and you're on your own for how to get across the border.

Now, here in Detroit-Windsor, not only has there been a Transit Windsor Tunnel Bus for years and years, but Transit Windsor, DDOT and SMART have worked out some sort of arrangement for transfers to the US buses for Canadian visitors. There's no such thing for US visitors to Canada, but that just means you have to pay the regular Transit Windsor bus fare to continue riding.

So I think it's possible today to ride Via and Amtrak in one trip, using DDOT and Transit Windsor buses to make the connections. I'm not sure exactly what's involved, but I do know you'd be paying four separate fares northbound (to Detroit) and five southbound.

If the various service providers could work it out to make it less complicated and maybe a little cheaper, it might be a popular thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2063
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 1:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^Does anyone know what the problem was at Port Huron/Sarnia? Apparently, they don't have the same problem on the Maple Leaf (NYC to Toronto), Adirondack (NYC to Montreal) or Cascades (Eugene, OR to Vancouver, BC).
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 807
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

9-11 was not the only problem. There was always a big lag at customs in Sarnia/Port Huron. They are simply understaffed.

There still is a train from Port Huron to Chicago, but now since it is not a VIA train but and Amtrak train it links into the Chicago Hub better and actually operates better for those in Port Huron who want to get the most out of their Chicago trip. Since the break the ridership along the line actually increased (as far as the State is concerned)
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 716
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From what I understand the inspection times at Port Huron were fairly long (due to lack of resources) and this was compounded by late arriving Via Rail trains. Remember, Sarnia/Port Huron is a major regional border crossing for travellers, trains, and commercial shipments by trucks.

The Toronto-Sarnia-Port Huron-Chicago line was a joint run operated by Via in Canada and Amtrak in the United States. The same train would run the entire distance so if there was a delay on the Canadian portion that delay would make the train even later on the American portion of the route.

No one is suggesting a Toronto-Windsor-Detroit-Chicag o train. What has been suggested (and I think Via Rail is looking into this) is that the terminus of the Toronto-Windsor line would be in Detroit. If this was to happen (i.e. the train would cross the border) it would make sense to preclear travellers at Windsor (for US customs purposes) or clear travellers at their final destination, i.e. Detroit).

Via and Amtrak could jointly operate a shuttle in order to avoid the following:

Toronto to Windsor (Via Rail)
Windsor station to Windsor bus terminal (Transit Windsor)
Windsor bus terminal to Detroit (downtown) (Transit Windsor Tunnel Bus)
Detroit (downtown) to Amtrak Station (DDOT)
Detroit Amtrak to Chicago, etc. (Amtrak)

That adds up to 2 trains and 3 buses (and to avoid walking one could throw in a PM ride from the Ren Cen to the DDOT bus terminal). A shuttle bus (which could be operated by Transit Windsor) could run between Windsor station and Detroit Amtrak. Or you could take a taxi. :-)

Of course, any Toronto-Windsor-Detroit line could not be used solely for Windsor to Detroit or Detroit to Windsor travel.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 809
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DDOT has a bus terminal?
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 717
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 3:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eventually.... :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1861
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 3:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now that we are all off topic....

quote:

Does anyone know what the problem was at Port Huron/Sarnia? Apparently, they don't have the same problem on the Maple Leaf (NYC to Toronto), Adirondack (NYC to Montreal) or Cascades (Eugene, OR to Vancouver, BC).


In addition to what has already been mentioned, two other things led to the change from the "international" to the "blue water."

The international route was quite long, and the border crossing was in the middle of the route, making the delays and reliability worse than the other international trains you mention.

The timing of the route also made travel from Michigan cities to and from Chicago quite inconvenient. The new schedule has one train leaving Port Huron in the morning, and returning at night. If you are visiting Chicago, you have a half day there on both of your travel days. (Or you have a couple of hours if you make it a day trip.)

Here is the Amtrak timetable for Michigan:
http://www.amtrak.com/timetabl e/oct06/W22.pdf
Here is the VIA timetable for Sarnia:
http://www.viarail.ca/pdf/2006 /new/National_6869_102006.pdf
and Widsor:
http://www.viarail.ca/pdf/2006 /new/National_6467_102006.pdf

I think a shuttle is a great short term solution. Ideally, the trains actually cross the border.

I see no reason why this can't be done right now at Sarnia/Port Huron. If done in Port Huron, Passengers would be immediately processed by US customs, and would be processed by Canadian customs before boarding. Unfortunately the times don't work out so there would be any opportunity for a logical transfer. The benefits aren't that great.

In Detroit, this is made more difficult by the current location of the Amtrak station in Detroit (as well as the VIA service in ON).

I rough measure on a map that it is about 6 miles from the border to the New Center station by rail, with quite a lot of switches to navigate. That may be a problem from the customs point of view. A refurbished/rebuilt/replaced MCS would serve this purpose quite nicely. Remember that is why it was built was it was.

It will also be a small challenge for VIA to get the train from the CN line on the north edge of town to the CP line on the south edge of town to make it into the tunnel as well.

But 4 VIA and currently 3 Amtrak trains a day (not to mention Greyhound buses) make a pretty good benefit. Especially considering the link between Toronto and Chicago and the size of the Detroit market -- both for travel to ON and for attracting trips from ON.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 719
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jsmyers,

you are right (I should have mentioned this) a major problem with Toronto-Sarnia-Port Huron-Detroit was the fact the border was in the middle of the route. That is the nice part about Detroit-Windsor-Toronto (and the reverse): customs would be either at the start of the route (heading into Canada) or at the end (those who wish to transfer to Detroit).

Windsor's station will likely be moved in the next five years or so as the city of Windsor wants the Windsor portion of the CN line abandoned. The leading locations for a new station are the airport (boo) and the area around the current train tunnel to Detroit.

Also, Detroit's Amshack is embarrassing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 811
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 4:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well technically it is a public transport route, if you have to go from TO to Chicago for work, I suppose it is applicable! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1863
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Upinottawa,

Does VIA stay on CN all the way to Toronto, or does it end up on CP somewhere? If they go through with the plans, how might the switch to CP work?

Just curious...
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 721
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 4:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe only the CN line is used from Windsor to Toronto.

I believe the plan is for the train to run on the CP line just after Chatham. If you look at Google Maps the CN line runs just North of the CP line after Chatham (you may be aware of this).

Windsor intends to start a massive rails to trails initiative.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 305
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 5:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I posted this on the bus thread.

Here is a list of commuter trains run by Amtrak:

* Caltrain (California)
* MARC (Maryland Area Regional Commuter)
* Shore Line East (Connecticut)
* VRE (Virginia Railway Express)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.